Well, not really. I think the discussion emphasis on "power" points the discussion in a very wrong direction, leading to competition for "power," as in:
White power, Black power, Gay power, women power, Youth power, etc etc.
Even the idea of "power sharing" focuses on an emphases on ability to force, coerce, manipulate, on the sheer ability (power) to get what one wants or thinks should be, in opposition to what others want or think should be.
I think this is terminology that fits a non-biblical worldview well. Indeed, if we focus on power (as opposed to, e.g., authority/responsibility), we are destined to create, or recreate, a world where reality is defined by merely taking note of who is the most powerful.
In that power-defined world, there might be "balances of power," but never true "power sharing." A power-defined world does not include true "power sharing" but only a "balance of power."
If we shift the discussion from one of power to one of authority and responsibility, we introduce the idea that power doesn't rule the day. Why? Because there is recognition, including by those most powerful, that decisions should be made for reasons other than an analysis of relative power. This happens in "upside down" worldview thinking, like Christianity.
I quite agree in most of what you say, Kelly. Indeed, e.g., we should "allow men" to hold church offices every little bit as we "allow women" to hold church offices.
But we may possibly disagree some as well. While I myself believe all church offices should be open to persons, men or women, I respect the complementarian view when held in good faith (that is, not as excuse to hold power). I also believe that while men and women generally are, biblically, co-authorized (both have authority) in most things of life, there can differences in the kinds of power they are likely to wield well, just because "God made them male and female."
Believing the latter does not put me into the "patriarchy power" thinking camp, because I don't elevate the importance (or perhaps priority) of power questions over authority/responsibility questions. I think the greatest is found among he or she that most/best serves, with whatever power God has given him or her. If that upside-down premise is accepted, talk of and concern about power tends to disappear.
I am concerned that an event like this webinar (which now I have listened some to) draws as much as it does from thinkers who come from a "power oriented" perspective. We may disagree, but I believe modern day "feminism" is essentially a power oriented perspective and thus not a biblical perspective. I think it is confusing, to say the least, to import that content into the CRC as if it is biblically normative.
I think it is counterproductive to assume a correlation between "race" and "ethnicity, language" or "culture" (as this article does), or to lay the charge of the "sin of racism" when churches struggle with cultural differences.
Being "white" says little to nothing about one's "culture." Neither does being "black" or "brown" or any other other "color" one might use to refer to race. I'm "white" but deal almost everyday with other "whites" who are quite "culturally different" from me. Conversely, I also deal with persons of other "races" (or skin colors) who I consider "culturally similar" to me.
Certainly, any church expecting or requiring (consciously or unconsciously) cultural assimilation by new attendees may want to adjust their perspective in that regard, but those cultural differences can come in any racial "color" -- and do -- and should not be regarded as race differences. Nor should struggles to culturally accommodate/integrate be considered the "sin of racism."
The Acton Institute ("parent" of Poverty Cure if I'm not mistaken) is a really good organization of folks with diverse Christian traditions. I especially like Acton for its emphasis on promoting what people and local/private organizations might do in response to poverty, as opposed to political advocacy, an approach that refers the poverty problem to government.
The CRCNA could use a bit more of influence from organization like Action, instead of organizations like Sojourners.
Adopting UNDRIP really means (read UNDRIP for yourself) present owners of real estate in Canada and the US need to give title to their real property to ... well someone else, even if it is not at all clear who given that indigenous people conquered other indigenous peoples over thousands of years such that "day one ownership" is impossible to determine. Even if "day one ownership" is possible, the approach of UNDRIP is still remarkably -- even breathtakingly -- unrealistic.
Lets get concrete. I quite sure that CRCNA real estate in Grand Rapids (and Toronto?) are "indigenous territories." Is there anyone who would favor deeding that real estate away? Doing just that would comply with (even be required by) the language if UNDRIP, after all.
Danielle. Thanks for the response, but Cam also says, "In particular, the church has made commitments to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as a framework for reconciliation," which I take to mean what it clearly says. In turn, UNDRIP calls for, among other things, "Indigenous peoples [to] have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." (Article 26), not just in Canada but worldwide (including the US of course).
I certainly understand the biblical mandate to do justice to and respect all people. What I cringe at is our hooking up with one or more sides of a political fight that is engaged quite outside the church. The CRCNA adopting UNDRIP is doing just that.
It is quite possible to respond biblically to injustices done (whether to indigenous peoples or otherwise) without joining forces with a broader, outside-the-CRCNA, political faction. You are correct when you say "there are no simple answers," but UNDRIP certainly seem to agree. So why have we adopted it and why do we advocate for what is says?
As to your suggestion "that these are the commitments of the CRC in Canada, not of the CRC as a whole," I don't quite understand. The CRCNA is one institutional church. I generally decline to opine about matters that Canadian congregations or classes take up, but this adoption of UNDRIP (which pronounces about the US as well as Canada) is being done, as I understand the reporting in this post, by a denominational agency.
I don't doubt that you and I would agree on many questions/answers relating to how we might regard indigenous peoples and their particular history. But I remain puzzled by our inclination to adopt a UN declaration like UNDRIP to address those questions/answers. That seems unnecessary at best, unconstructive for the CRCNA at worst.
I've noticed Think Christian's recent shift to almost exclusively cover only pop media (e.g., popular singers, rappers, movies, videogames, etc), as if pop media equals the world.
I for one have been quite disappointed. Certainly, pop media is part of the world but after this shift, Think Christian gives the impression that pop media is all there is to "think Christianly" about. Indeed, while my adult SS class is called "Think Christian," and while I used to (for the last couple of years") use TC articles as class material, I no longer do, cuz I can't. My SS class members (of a broad range of ages, occupations, etc) just aren't all that interested in an exclusive diet of pop artists, songs, videogames and movies.
Monica. I would very much agree that this abusive pastor was and may well still be a highly skilled, manipulative predator. Most lawyers, not just prosecutors, would recognize the profile.
What I have long wondered is whether there is some connection between the church's rather fashionable inclination toward "restorative justice" and a particular vulnerability to being manipulated, as this publication was, by these kinds of predators.
Don't get me wrong. I love "restorative justice." But I also believe that "restorative justice" is pretty hard to come by in the real world, and usually because the perpetrator wants to be excused, not restored. It takes two to have true restorative justice, a truth that restorative justice advocates would sometimes like to not be the case. That may be a harsh thing to say but I think it is true.
In other words, I think there is a tension here for the church: it so wants the perpetrator and victim to be restored, but it needs to hold perpetrators accountable. The former "want" can overwhelm the latter responsibility, especially when the perpetrator is skilled, and sexual predators are often quite skilled.
This is just difficult in a way, especially for kind hearted, merciful and gracious "church people." Not sure of the solution to this but I quite believe this tension exists and can be a serious problem, as evidenced by this article.
I want to be clear that I am not trying to badmouth "restorative justice," or a "restorative justice process." I have practiced both in my 37 year long practice of law, starting decades before the CRCNA ever said a word about it (it was a big thing for the Friends community out here and I just thought it made sense).
But, it is a difficult thing. It is the harder way. And sometimes, those who just know of the phrase (it is fashionable these days, which in a way is not helpful) but don't understand the complexity, nor the nuance involved, nor that sometimes, maybe often, it can't be done, at least not in the immediate timeframe or when in the context of certain kinds of firmly held perspectives by one or both parties.
And the fashionable popularity of "restorative justice" and "restorative justice processes," as good as those concepts may be, will likely be cause for mistakes like this to be made.
Things in life are sometimes complicated. I just wanted suggest why and how I thought this situation was complicated. Understanding complication helps us "do better" with it.
Posted in: Partnership View of Power
Well, not really. I think the discussion emphasis on "power" points the discussion in a very wrong direction, leading to competition for "power," as in:
White power, Black power, Gay power, women power, Youth power, etc etc.
Even the idea of "power sharing" focuses on an emphases on ability to force, coerce, manipulate, on the sheer ability (power) to get what one wants or thinks should be, in opposition to what others want or think should be.
I think this is terminology that fits a non-biblical worldview well. Indeed, if we focus on power (as opposed to, e.g., authority/responsibility), we are destined to create, or recreate, a world where reality is defined by merely taking note of who is the most powerful.
In that power-defined world, there might be "balances of power," but never true "power sharing." A power-defined world does not include true "power sharing" but only a "balance of power."
If we shift the discussion from one of power to one of authority and responsibility, we introduce the idea that power doesn't rule the day. Why? Because there is recognition, including by those most powerful, that decisions should be made for reasons other than an analysis of relative power. This happens in "upside down" worldview thinking, like Christianity.
Posted in: Partnership View of Power
I quite agree in most of what you say, Kelly. Indeed, e.g., we should "allow men" to hold church offices every little bit as we "allow women" to hold church offices.
But we may possibly disagree some as well. While I myself believe all church offices should be open to persons, men or women, I respect the complementarian view when held in good faith (that is, not as excuse to hold power). I also believe that while men and women generally are, biblically, co-authorized (both have authority) in most things of life, there can differences in the kinds of power they are likely to wield well, just because "God made them male and female."
Believing the latter does not put me into the "patriarchy power" thinking camp, because I don't elevate the importance (or perhaps priority) of power questions over authority/responsibility questions. I think the greatest is found among he or she that most/best serves, with whatever power God has given him or her. If that upside-down premise is accepted, talk of and concern about power tends to disappear.
I am concerned that an event like this webinar (which now I have listened some to) draws as much as it does from thinkers who come from a "power oriented" perspective. We may disagree, but I believe modern day "feminism" is essentially a power oriented perspective and thus not a biblical perspective. I think it is confusing, to say the least, to import that content into the CRC as if it is biblically normative.
Posted in: Overcoming Racism to Answer the Call of the Great Commission (Race Relations US-West newsletter)
I think it is counterproductive to assume a correlation between "race" and "ethnicity, language" or "culture" (as this article does), or to lay the charge of the "sin of racism" when churches struggle with cultural differences.
Being "white" says little to nothing about one's "culture." Neither does being "black" or "brown" or any other other "color" one might use to refer to race. I'm "white" but deal almost everyday with other "whites" who are quite "culturally different" from me. Conversely, I also deal with persons of other "races" (or skin colors) who I consider "culturally similar" to me.
Certainly, any church expecting or requiring (consciously or unconsciously) cultural assimilation by new attendees may want to adjust their perspective in that regard, but those cultural differences can come in any racial "color" -- and do -- and should not be regarded as race differences. Nor should struggles to culturally accommodate/integrate be considered the "sin of racism."
Posted in: PovertyCure - a Six-Part Video Series for Small Groups
The Acton Institute ("parent" of Poverty Cure if I'm not mistaken) is a really good organization of folks with diverse Christian traditions. I especially like Acton for its emphasis on promoting what people and local/private organizations might do in response to poverty, as opposed to political advocacy, an approach that refers the poverty problem to government.
The CRCNA could use a bit more of influence from organization like Action, instead of organizations like Sojourners.
Posted in: Tools for Acknowledging Indigenous Territory, Language, Treaties
Adopting UNDRIP really means (read UNDRIP for yourself) present owners of real estate in Canada and the US need to give title to their real property to ... well someone else, even if it is not at all clear who given that indigenous people conquered other indigenous peoples over thousands of years such that "day one ownership" is impossible to determine. Even if "day one ownership" is possible, the approach of UNDRIP is still remarkably -- even breathtakingly -- unrealistic.
Lets get concrete. I quite sure that CRCNA real estate in Grand Rapids (and Toronto?) are "indigenous territories." Is there anyone who would favor deeding that real estate away? Doing just that would comply with (even be required by) the language if UNDRIP, after all.
Or is the CRCNA all talk and no action?
Posted in: Tools for Acknowledging Indigenous Territory, Language, Treaties
Danielle. Thanks for the response, but Cam also says, "In particular, the church has made commitments to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as a framework for reconciliation," which I take to mean what it clearly says. In turn, UNDRIP calls for, among other things, "Indigenous peoples [to] have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." (Article 26), not just in Canada but worldwide (including the US of course).
I certainly understand the biblical mandate to do justice to and respect all people. What I cringe at is our hooking up with one or more sides of a political fight that is engaged quite outside the church. The CRCNA adopting UNDRIP is doing just that.
It is quite possible to respond biblically to injustices done (whether to indigenous peoples or otherwise) without joining forces with a broader, outside-the-CRCNA, political faction. You are correct when you say "there are no simple answers," but UNDRIP certainly seem to agree. So why have we adopted it and why do we advocate for what is says?
As to your suggestion "that these are the commitments of the CRC in Canada, not of the CRC as a whole," I don't quite understand. The CRCNA is one institutional church. I generally decline to opine about matters that Canadian congregations or classes take up, but this adoption of UNDRIP (which pronounces about the US as well as Canada) is being done, as I understand the reporting in this post, by a denominational agency.
I don't doubt that you and I would agree on many questions/answers relating to how we might regard indigenous peoples and their particular history. But I remain puzzled by our inclination to adopt a UN declaration like UNDRIP to address those questions/answers. That seems unnecessary at best, unconstructive for the CRCNA at worst.
Posted in: Think Christian Publishes a New Pop Culture Primer
I've noticed Think Christian's recent shift to almost exclusively cover only pop media (e.g., popular singers, rappers, movies, videogames, etc), as if pop media equals the world.
I for one have been quite disappointed. Certainly, pop media is part of the world but after this shift, Think Christian gives the impression that pop media is all there is to "think Christianly" about. Indeed, while my adult SS class is called "Think Christian," and while I used to (for the last couple of years") use TC articles as class material, I no longer do, cuz I can't. My SS class members (of a broad range of ages, occupations, etc) just aren't all that interested in an exclusive diet of pop artists, songs, videogames and movies.
Posted in: I’m Reformed — Who Cares?
Thanks for this article Syd. Amen!
Posted in: EBSCO Host: Another Front in the Fight Against Pornography's Effects on Children
Thanks for posting this Monica.
Posted in: Every Pastor in the CRC Should Hear This
Amen!
Posted in: Choose the Harder Path
Monica. I would very much agree that this abusive pastor was and may well still be a highly skilled, manipulative predator. Most lawyers, not just prosecutors, would recognize the profile.
What I have long wondered is whether there is some connection between the church's rather fashionable inclination toward "restorative justice" and a particular vulnerability to being manipulated, as this publication was, by these kinds of predators.
Don't get me wrong. I love "restorative justice." But I also believe that "restorative justice" is pretty hard to come by in the real world, and usually because the perpetrator wants to be excused, not restored. It takes two to have true restorative justice, a truth that restorative justice advocates would sometimes like to not be the case. That may be a harsh thing to say but I think it is true.
In other words, I think there is a tension here for the church: it so wants the perpetrator and victim to be restored, but it needs to hold perpetrators accountable. The former "want" can overwhelm the latter responsibility, especially when the perpetrator is skilled, and sexual predators are often quite skilled.
This is just difficult in a way, especially for kind hearted, merciful and gracious "church people." Not sure of the solution to this but I quite believe this tension exists and can be a serious problem, as evidenced by this article.
Posted in: Choose the Harder Path
I want to be clear that I am not trying to badmouth "restorative justice," or a "restorative justice process." I have practiced both in my 37 year long practice of law, starting decades before the CRCNA ever said a word about it (it was a big thing for the Friends community out here and I just thought it made sense).
But, it is a difficult thing. It is the harder way. And sometimes, those who just know of the phrase (it is fashionable these days, which in a way is not helpful) but don't understand the complexity, nor the nuance involved, nor that sometimes, maybe often, it can't be done, at least not in the immediate timeframe or when in the context of certain kinds of firmly held perspectives by one or both parties.
And the fashionable popularity of "restorative justice" and "restorative justice processes," as good as those concepts may be, will likely be cause for mistakes like this to be made.
Things in life are sometimes complicated. I just wanted suggest why and how I thought this situation was complicated. Understanding complication helps us "do better" with it.